If we go about this pissing contest : my native place is more typical of Orthodoxy, as a whole than yours, dude.

I'm sure it is. But then again I'm not holding my place up as a model for everyone to follow.

Logged

Quote

When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.

- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Nothing personal. I just find that sort of literature sanctimonious, sirupy and way too much aimed at the middle/upper class.

Like the Fathers?

Has she been canonized recently?

No, but neither has Origen. Your point?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Nothing personal. I just find that sort of literature sanctimonious, sirupy and way too much aimed at the middle/upper class.

Like the Fathers?

Precisely.And for the record, I haven't read any of her work. It was my connection with one of the "Old" countries that brought me to the steps of the church. While I am guilty of being one of these hated upper class westerners, my marriage with a lower-class easterner, and the independent interest in the east that I possessed which grew exponentially after my marriage, got me here. I do not have an sort of American Orthodox bias; almost my entire experience with the church has been in Russia, and I have almost no experience at all with American Orthodoxy, to be honest. I've never been to liturgy in English, only at Slavonic services in Russia or the US. But while I do adore Russia in many ways, and both symbolically and practically (I go to church in Russia, after all) probably practice my faith in a "Russian" way, I don't let Russia, any nation, or any idea of this group or that group define Orthodoxy, or what is more correct in Orthodoxy.

That's about as PC as I've ever sounded in my life.

Also, did the church ever stipulate that the upper class did not belong among Her flock? So what if certain works allegedly target an upper/middle class audience? Good! More of whoever is more.

if the upper/middle class, i.e. those who could read, were cut off from the Church's flock, who were the Fathers writing to?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well to address the red-herring of anti-semitism, the only places in the Romanian church where one can find such an animal nowadays are a few monasteries (like Petru-Voda) and some zealot organizations (the women members are instantly recognized by their nun-ish looks, the men by their monk-ish appearence) that I have no stomach for anyways, since these folks are also big on "correcting" the "superstitions" of the people.

I think you're just going to have to accept that some people are going to be crazy zealots with fascist sympathies. Why complain? Just go with the flow, dude. Don't be such a Puritan.

Quote

It's simply not the faith I've known in my native place.

You need to cope with the fact that no one else here has been to or likely will ever visit your particular "native place", and therefore no one here is particularly interested in emulating your village life as the gold standard of authentic Orthodoxy.

I don't know if I've been to his particular "native place," but I do know that I've been close, and there are those here who probably have. Augustin is less representative of Romanians than he lets on.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well to address the red-herring of anti-semitism, the only places in the Romanian church where one can find such an animal nowadays are a few monasteries (like Petru-Voda) and some zealot organizations (the women members are instantly recognized by their nun-ish looks, the men by their monk-ish appearence) that I have no stomach for anyways, since these folks are also big on "correcting" the "superstitions" of the people.

I think you're just going to have to accept that some people are going to be crazy zealots with fascist sympathies. Why complain? Just go with the flow, dude. Don't be such a Puritan.

Quote

It's simply not the faith I've known in my native place.

You need to cope with the fact that no one else here has been to or likely will ever visit your particular "native place", and therefore no one here is particularly interested in emulating your village life as the gold standard of authentic Orthodoxy.

I don't know if I've been to his particular "native place," but I do know that I've been close, and there are those here who probably have. Augustin is less representative of Romanians than he lets on.

Dated a Romanian for years. And all I can say is that the more "exuberant" folks at my parish when I was announced as a catachumen were the Romanians.

My "second sponsor" is a Romanian fellow. He says:

It is good. You choose Orthodoxy. It is the Church. Too many people born to it take it for granted like me until I was 45 . . . .

Then he started giving me very specific instructions on what I should be doing. Today, he asked about how strict my fast was today. Did you have a meal? I had a small one, but you are young and can go without.

I love augustin717. He's one of the folks I want at my OC.net meet-up, even if he and I have to travel to Romania to properly conduct it.

It would have to be: Orthodox soil and all.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Remember, the priest's wife is also due respect. Her role in her parish is greater than any other woman's.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

It's just that if you pay handsomely more solemnity will be added to the celebration. Otherwise they'll be done on the "fast-track" mode. But even this varies from priest to priest etc.

Speaking both as a chanter and as a priest's wife, that disgusts me. Just sayin'...

Real world is as it is.

The real world is more complicated than your homogeneous "old country" romanticism.

Well, I mean the life of an average parish in the Orthodox world does not stand up to what you might have read in Frederica's books that probably led you to the "True Church"

What is it with you and MATUSHKA Frederica, anyway? What'd she ever do to you?

This goes back to a question which remained unanswered here before:

Is it policy to use a title when referring to the wife of a Priest?

If so which do you use? I have seen Frederica Matthews-Green(?) referred in the Russian, Greek, etc. traditions.

That's a good question. Maybe a mod can answer for us?

Or anyone. I've asked it a couple times before. Heck, I am never sure how hard to keep the rule in "RL".

Not to derail the thread (not that it was particularly productive anyway...), but the real life question is kind of a difficult one, actually. Some presvyteres prefer to be called presvytera (or whichever term is in the proper language for them), some prefer not to be. I try to listen to how they introduce themselves.

For me personally, I've been a priest's wife now for several years and it's still an akward and difficult subject just because I feel so unworthy of a term that makes reference to God (more on that below). I introduce myself to people as "Presvytera Mari" and within the parish I do wish to be called "Presvytera" simply because it is what my husband, my spiritual father, my hierarch, and the Church expect. The Church has decided that it is important for priests' wives to be called by such a term because it defers to her husband's priesthood and thus ultimately to God.

Now honestly, most of the people in our parish do not call me Presvytera. The reason, so I'm told, is because I am young. Their idea of a Presvytera is one much older than I, and they always say "that's a term for older women," and then we have to have a conversation... But the majority of the time I don't correct people or say anything about it because I don't want people to think that I expect some sort of title or place of honor. I don't feel that way at all. I only accept the term because of the reference it makes to my husband and to God. I only accept the term because it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me.

Just my $.02. Honestly, I would REALLY love to hear what Fr. George and Serb1389 have to say on the subject (maybe we should start a new thread?).

Logged

Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.Matthew 18:5

To answer my own question I think Presbytera is probably the best, since using the word "Priest" is an unfortunate use of the word in English. Since all members of the Church are members of the Priesthood. "Presbyter" instead of "Priest" would be better, thus making Presbytera a better choice. IMHO

EDIT: The above is rhetorical, as I know of no one using an English title for the wife of a Priest. Find it odd.

It's not odd, because there isn't an English title other than "wife of the priest," which just doesn't sound right.

I think the collection of geniuses here could develop one.

That being said. Your Priest is thoroughly a native English-speaker as is his wife and he is the Priest of an OCA parish of nearly all native-English speakers:

Which language does everyone choose to use? Or do the Priest and wife choose to use? Whichever "tradition" they like the best?

Given the Slavic background of the OCA as a whole, I've always heard and used "matushka" (similar to how we use "vladyka" for bishops). I imagine in similar situations in the Antiochian Archdiocese, you hear "khouriya" (sp?) and "presbytera" in the GOA. In general, they probably use the tradition they're most familiar with and are used to, rather than whichever one they "like."

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

I love augustin717. He's one of the folks I want at my OC.net meet-up, even if he and I have to travel to Romania to properly conduct it.

It would have to be: Orthodox soil and all.

We'll we could have a ton of soil brought from the Holy Romania and consecrate the Calvinist, heretical ground upon which we tread.

If it worked for a bloodsucker like Dracula, it should be OK with augustin.

LOL. They did that for Bela Lugosi, with soil from his birthplace IIRC: throught the magic of WWI, it was Romanian soil by the time he died.

Btw, IIRC Augsutin is from Transylvania, the only Orhtodox Church that went through a period when it was officially (and only officially) Calvinist.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I love augustin717. He's one of the folks I want at my OC.net meet-up, even if he and I have to travel to Romania to properly conduct it.

It would have to be: Orthodox soil and all.

We'll we could have a ton of soil brought from the Holy Romania and consecrate the Calvinist, heretical ground upon which we tread.

If it worked for a bloodsucker like Dracula, it should be OK with augustin.

Yeah, but we'd have to have an OC.net collection for the bribe gift to the clergy afterwards.

I doubt any of the Preists here are going to want to meet either augustin or me without greasing their palm a little.

well that will have to be with sunflower oil right now.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

EDIT: The above is rhetorical, as I know of no one using an English title for the wife of a Priest. Find it odd.

It's not odd, because there isn't an English title other than "wife of the priest," which just doesn't sound right.

I think the collection of geniuses here could develop one.

That being said. Your Priest is thoroughly a native English-speaker as is his wife and he is the Priest of an OCA parish of nearly all native-English speakers:

Which language does everyone choose to use? Or do the Priest and wife choose to use? Whichever "tradition" they like the best?

Given the Slavic background of the OCA as a whole, I've always heard and used "matushka" (similar to how we use "vladyka" for bishops). I imagine in similar situations in the Antiochian Archdiocese, you hear "khouriya" (sp?) and "presbytera" in the GOA. In general, they probably use the tradition they're most familiar with and are used to, rather than whichever one they "like."

Although my Presbyter definitely comes from a "slavic angle", we address his wife as Presbytera. Also, among the parishioners the rubrics they follow skew more "Greek".

the only Orhtodox Church that went through a period when it was officially (and only officially) Calvinist.

Not really Calvinist but overseen by Calvinist princes that wanted to implement some calvinist reforms(more moderate than elsewhere) in it. In true eastern and national spirit Simion Stefan, Ilie Iorest, Sava Brancovici et told their masters what they wanted o hear, and in their church they still did what they had been always doing. Actually Sava Brancovici was thrown into prison by the Hungarian Calvinists when they realized he had been lying to them.

« Last Edit: March 17, 2011, 11:23:42 AM by augustin717 »

Logged

"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

EDIT: The above is rhetorical, as I know of no one using an English title for the wife of a Priest. Find it odd.

I'm not a native speaker of English so I guess I shouldn't say much about this but... Is it really that different from other religious loanwords such as "hosanna" and "hallelujah" etc. ?

Btw, technically there's no Finnish title for the wife of a Priest either. Instead of that the Finnish Orthodox use a little reformulated loanword from Russian "maatuska" as a title for priests' wives. The other Christians just talk about wives of priests' or in more informal speech some people use "pastorska" which is probably a loanword from Swedish.

As a sidenote, most Finns won't probably know that "maatuska" is actually a title for priest's wives since Matryoshka dolls are also called as maatuskas in Finnish.

the only Orhtodox Church that went through a period when it was officially (and only officially) Calvinist.

Not really Calvinist but overseen by Calvinist princes that wanted to implement some calvinist reforms(more moderate than elsewhere) in it. In true eastern and national spirit Simion Stefan, Ilie Iorest, Sava Brancovici et told their masters what they wanted o hear, and in their church they still did what they had been always doing. Actually Sava Brancovici was thrown into prison by the Hungarian Calvinists when they realized he had been lying to them.

History of the Orthodox Church in Austria-Hungary By Margaret Georgiana Dampier

Quote

With the royal patent confirming his appointment as Archbishop of Weissenburg, Rakoczy transmitted to Stephen, on October 10, 1643, a long 'instruction,' dealing minutely with matters of doctrine and practice. From this remarkable document we may see that the new archbishop was expected to conform more closely to the standard of a Protestant superintendent than to that of an archbishop of the Orthodox Church.

Among its most noteworthy provisions are the following :—

(1) Stephen is to make use exclusively of the reformed catechism supplied to him by the Protestant Church, and is to insist that his bishops and clergy use it too in all teaching given by them to the Roumanian people.

(2) Baptism is to be administered in the name of the Holy Trinity with water only, according to Christ's institution. (Is this aimed at trine immersion, or at the anointing with chrism which immediately follows baptism in the Eastern Church ?)

(3) Holy Communion is to be administered in both kinds (this must mean separately, since the Eastern Church does not allow Communion in one kind), and only to adults of good moral life.

(4) Crosses and pictures in churches are not to be accorded religious veneration, but only to be used as reminders of our Lord's life and death.

(5) Burials are to be conducted 'according to the Calvinist rite.

(6) Nobody, either priest or layman, is to be hindered or dissuaded from joining the Reformed Church. They are to be treated with the same affection as the faithful adherents of the orthodox faith.

(7) A synod is to be held yearly, which all the Roumanian clergy are to attend, but the decision of any difficult points of dogma is to be submitted to the General Superintendent of the Protestant Church.

( The superintendent is to have a vote in the election or deposition of a proto-pope just as much as the bishop, the members of his consistory court, and the clergy of the district concerned.

(9) All decisions of the bishop's consistory court in disputes between the clergy must be referred finally to the Protestant superintendent.

(10) A Roumanian priest may not marry or bury a Hungarian or baptize their children. Only in the case of a Roumanian marrying a Hungarian woman may the Roumanian priest perform the ceremony.

It is difficult to see how Stephen reconciled the acceptance of such regulations with his position as archbishop. However he professed at least an outward compliance, and allowed the Protestant Confession to be circulated and taught amongst his flock, though its appearance in the Danubian provinces was the signal for an outburst of horror and indignation.

The catechism was repudiated by a Synod of Roumanian bishops, held under the presidency of the Metropolitan of Moldavia, Barlaam, who undertook to refute it in a pastoral letter which he published in 1645. This energetic action on the part of the Roumanian bishops was of great value in checking the spread of Protestantism amongst their co-religionists in Transylvania. Stephen showed a scarcely less culpable weakness and negligence to the true interests of his church, when he consented, in 1651, to consecrate a monk named Peter Parthenius to the see of Munkacs, despite his well-known tendencies towards Roman Catholicism. But the Metropolitanate of Stephen was not without some cheering features. The translation of the Psalms into Roumanian was accomplished in 1651, followed later on by the whole of the New Testament.

Indeed the 'instruction' sent by Rakoczy i. to Stephen at his consecration insisted strongly on the exclusive use of the vernacular in the services of the Roumanian Church as well as in Bible reading and preaching. It is to be feared, however, that Rakoczy's object was not so much the spiritual advancement of the Roumanian Church as its detachment from its sister churches in Greece and beyond the Danube, with a view to propagating Protestant teaching amongst its members.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It's just that if you pay handsomely more solemnity will be added to the celebration. Otherwise they'll be done on the "fast-track" mode. But even this varies from priest to priest etc.

Speaking both as a chanter and as a priest's wife, that disgusts me. Just sayin'...

Real world is as it is.

The real world is more complicated than your homogeneous "old country" romanticism.

Well, I mean the life of an average parish in the Orthodox world does not stand up to what you might have read in Frederica's books that probably led you to the "True Church"

What is it with you and MATUSHKA Frederica, anyway? What'd she ever do to you?

This goes back to a question which remained unanswered here before:

Is it policy to use a title when referring to the wife of a Priest?

If so which do you use? I have seen Frederica Matthews-Green(?) referred in the Russian, Greek, etc. traditions.

That's a good question. Maybe a mod can answer for us?

Or anyone. I've asked it a couple times before. Heck, I am never sure how hard to keep the rule in "RL".

Not to derail the thread (not that it was particularly productive anyway...), but the real life question is kind of a difficult one, actually. Some presvyteres prefer to be called presvytera (or whichever term is in the proper language for them), some prefer not to be. I try to listen to how they introduce themselves.

For me personally, I've been a priest's wife now for several years and it's still an akward and difficult subject just because I feel so unworthy of a term that makes reference to God (more on that below). I introduce myself to people as "Presvytera Mari" and within the parish I do wish to be called "Presvytera" simply because it is what my husband, my spiritual father, my hierarch, and the Church expect. The Church has decided that it is important for priests' wives to be called by such a term because it defers to her husband's priesthood and thus ultimately to God.

Now honestly, most of the people in our parish do not call me Presvytera. The reason, so I'm told, is because I am young. Their idea of a Presvytera is one much older than I, and they always say "that's a term for older women," and then we have to have a conversation... But the majority of the time I don't correct people or say anything about it because I don't want people to think that I expect some sort of title or place of honor. I don't feel that way at all. I only accept the term because of the reference it makes to my husband and to God. I only accept the term because it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me.

Just my $.02. Honestly, I would REALLY love to hear what Fr. George and Serb1389 have to say on the subject (maybe we should start a new thread?).

Good thing you are not the wife of a Bulgarian priest, who colloquially is called as "pop" and his wife is called "popadia." My mother used to hate that and was glad that most folks also called her "presvytera."

It is not the task of Christianity to provide easy answers to every question, but to make us progressively aware of a mystery. God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.-Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.

- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

You're right, I didn't mean any harm but that wasn't cool of me. My apologies. You should probably edit it out of your post too.

Logged

Quote

When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.

- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Pardon my ignorance, but I presume that the RL you referenced was neither Ralph Lauren nor a digraph in Australian Aboriginal languages representing a retroflex lateral - although Ialmisry is a linguist.....

the only Orhtodox Church that went through a period when it was officially (and only officially) Calvinist.

Not really Calvinist but overseen by Calvinist princes that wanted to implement some calvinist reforms(more moderate than elsewhere) in it. In true eastern and national spirit Simion Stefan, Ilie Iorest, Sava Brancovici et told their masters what they wanted o hear, and in their church they still did what they had been always doing. Actually Sava Brancovici was thrown into prison by the Hungarian Calvinists when they realized he had been lying to them.

History of the Orthodox Church in Austria-Hungary By Margaret Georgiana Dampier

Quote

With the royal patent confirming his appointment as Archbishop of Weissenburg, Rakoczy transmitted to Stephen, on October 10, 1643, a long 'instruction,' dealing minutely with matters of doctrine and practice. From this remarkable document we may see that the new archbishop was expected to conform more closely to the standard of a Protestant superintendent than to that of an archbishop of the Orthodox Church.

Among its most noteworthy provisions are the following :—

(1) Stephen is to make use exclusively of the reformed catechism supplied to him by the Protestant Church, and is to insist that his bishops and clergy use it too in all teaching given by them to the Roumanian people.

(2) Baptism is to be administered in the name of the Holy Trinity with water only, according to Christ's institution. (Is this aimed at trine immersion, or at the anointing with chrism which immediately follows baptism in the Eastern Church ?)

(3) Holy Communion is to be administered in both kinds (this must mean separately, since the Eastern Church does not allow Communion in one kind), and only to adults of good moral life.

(4) Crosses and pictures in churches are not to be accorded religious veneration, but only to be used as reminders of our Lord's life and death.

(5) Burials are to be conducted 'according to the Calvinist rite.

(6) Nobody, either priest or layman, is to be hindered or dissuaded from joining the Reformed Church. They are to be treated with the same affection as the faithful adherents of the orthodox faith.

(7) A synod is to be held yearly, which all the Roumanian clergy are to attend, but the decision of any difficult points of dogma is to be submitted to the General Superintendent of the Protestant Church.

( The superintendent is to have a vote in the election or deposition of a proto-pope just as much as the bishop, the members of his consistory court, and the clergy of the district concerned.

(9) All decisions of the bishop's consistory court in disputes between the clergy must be referred finally to the Protestant superintendent.

(10) A Roumanian priest may not marry or bury a Hungarian or baptize their children. Only in the case of a Roumanian marrying a Hungarian woman may the Roumanian priest perform the ceremony.

It is difficult to see how Stephen reconciled the acceptance of such regulations with his position as archbishop. However he professed at least an outward compliance, and allowed the Protestant Confession to be circulated and taught amongst his flock, though its appearance in the Danubian provinces was the signal for an outburst of horror and indignation.

The catechism was repudiated by a Synod of Roumanian bishops, held under the presidency of the Metropolitan of Moldavia, Barlaam, who undertook to refute it in a pastoral letter which he published in 1645. This energetic action on the part of the Roumanian bishops was of great value in checking the spread of Protestantism amongst their co-religionists in Transylvania. Stephen showed a scarcely less culpable weakness and negligence to the true interests of his church, when he consented, in 1651, to consecrate a monk named Peter Parthenius to the see of Munkacs, despite his well-known tendencies towards Roman Catholicism. But the Metropolitanate of Stephen was not without some cheering features. The translation of the Psalms into Roumanian was accomplished in 1651, followed later on by the whole of the New Testament.

Indeed the 'instruction' sent by Rakoczy i. to Stephen at his consecration insisted strongly on the exclusive use of the vernacular in the services of the Roumanian Church as well as in Bible reading and preaching. It is to be feared, however, that Rakoczy's object was not so much the spiritual advancement of the Roumanian Church as its detachment from its sister churches in Greece and beyond the Danube, with a view to propagating Protestant teaching amongst its members.

EDIT: The above is rhetorical, as I know of no one using an English title for the wife of a Priest. Find it odd.

It's not odd, because there isn't an English title other than "wife of the priest," which just doesn't sound right.

I think the collection of geniuses here could develop one.

That being said. Your Priest is thoroughly a native English-speaker as is his wife and he is the Priest of an OCA parish of nearly all native-English speakers:

Which language does everyone choose to use? Or do the Priest and wife choose to use? Whichever "tradition" they like the best?

Given the Slavic background of the OCA as a whole, I've always heard and used "matushka" (similar to how we use "vladyka" for bishops). I imagine in similar situations in the Antiochian Archdiocese, you hear "khouriya" (sp?) and "presbytera" in the GOA. In general, they probably use the tradition they're most familiar with and are used to, rather than whichever one they "like."

I prefer "Master" for bishops because when I say "Bless, Vladyka" in an "Igor" voice, it's just not the same.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Thanks. That was really interesting, I've heard of this but never saw these details. Munkacs is rhe same as Muchachevo, correct?

Mukachevo, yes. Once the Habsburgs were in a position to take Transylvania's autonomy after 1683 (defeat of the Ottomans at Vienna), they then tried to use the Orthodox as a bulwark agaisnt the Calvinists (as the Calvinists used them against the Vatican's hiearchy), leading to the HRE Leopold decreeing the Orthodox "reunited" to the Vatican a few decades later.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth